Commentary Week Nine

Composition Wars

Now I know why there is a split between the English purists (composition teachers) and ESL teachers. Teaching English composition is a culturally esteemed position. This issue is directly related, in my opinion, to Kenneth Burke and the nature of language itself. Language is so culturally influenced that I don’t believe there will ever be an integration of ESL and pure English composition. How can there ever be a meld of the two disciplines? ESL students, by definition, will never acquire a pure form of English competence; just as I will never acquire a pure form of the Spanish language.

I think the division of labor has further subdivided the first and second language camps. The division of labor has been going on long before the official institutionalization of first and second language instruction in the 1960’s. Matsuda argues:

the division of labor between composition specialists and ESL specialists was inadvertently created between the 1940’s and the 1960’s as a byproduct of the professionalization of TESL as well as of composition studies (714).

Anytime you professionalize a discipline then egos come into play. Each camp thinks that they know more about their discipline than anyone else; and you know what, that’s probably true. But, the byproduct of this intellectual elitism is that the ESL student falls further and further behind the student whose first language is English. I think Walker Percy puts it bluntly:

A student who has the desire to get at a dogfish or a Shakespeare sonnet may have the greatest difficulty in salvaging the creature itself from the educational package in which it is presented. The great difficulty is that he is not aware that there is a difficulty, surely, he thinks, in such a fine classroom, with such a fine textbook, the sonnet must come across! What’s wrong with me? (Percy, The Message in the Bottle, 58)

The point is there is nothing wrong with the student, but the student doesn’t know this. While the inherent egoism of education continues, the biggest loser is the student. I believe this is the thrust of Paul Matsuda’s article.

All right, I will get off my soapbox now and finish this commentary. Matsuda makes three good suggestions to improve the writing of ESL students:

1) First, language composition instructors should learn about ESL writing and ESL writers. This could be accomplished through professional development.

2) In teacher education and graduate education programs an ESL teaching component could be added.

3) Institutions could provide ESL friendly environments; ESL class options, trained ESL teachers, multiple course options.

Matsuda’s article was written in 1999 and I think Lisa asked about the present state of ESL instruction today. I don’t believe much has changed. A lot of the suggestions Matsuda made in 1999 have been implemented. At MJC for example, there are trained ESL teachers and varied ESL course offerings. I think it depends on the institution, the region of the country, and the economic conditions as to whether or not inroads are being made to better instruct ESL writers.